U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

I thought his comment was pretty black and white. No tax dollars for anything involved in any way with religion. Never mind that the religion is free and the tax dollars are going to help people in real ways and the government isn't having to establish a new agency and reinvent the wheel to get that done. I think it is a perfect partnership.

What you suggest is more or less how things were handled during the middle ages. Which was, come to think of it, when there were no concerns about mixing church and state.

Of course, the Enlightenment challenged that world view. A change in perspective that is now being rolled back as dramatically as possible...

In the Middle Ages people were required to believe and practice their religion in a certain way or suffer dire consequences. Please explain D, the parallel between that and exposure to a little non-coercive religion by a few faith-based charitable organizations? None of the groups I listed REQUIRE belief or practice, but all will expose people to their particular beliefs. I see a huge difference there.

Let me tell you about a little example of contemporary "non-coercive" religion, Foxfyre.

A local mission, which I used to support, gives out free meals to the homeless. All well and good. Turns out, they offer free meals to those who attend a church service. Those who refuse can get the meal for $3.

Now, you may call that non-coercive, but I don't. I now give my money to a non-religious food bank.

Well I hope there is are plenty of non-religious food banks in your area D. There aren't in mine. It would be coercive I think if the mission required the people to make a profession of faith or act out in any religious way. To ask them to sit in on a church service that costs them nothing but time....a commodity the homeless have plenty of....is not excessive in my way of thinking. If I was homeless and did not accept the particular brand of religion that mission advocated, I would simply ignore the ritual and spend the time reading or snoozeing or enjoying being in out of the cold or heat for a little while.

Nope, I just don't think that's sufficient to be coercive.

Posting weirdness.

If the f#ckers are taking money from the govt to subsidise that meal and they're using the promise of a free meal to stuff their f#cking church and 'witness' the charity of the Invisible Sky Being - too damn right it's both coercive and wrong!

and again. Very odd.

ditto

I would like to know if the "religious" groups getting this money are requiring the people who receive services from them to go to church and pledge a faith or if it is help that is just given.

Most people see the religion aspect and assume the worst. They think religion is evil regardless of what happens or how they help. I think those are the worst people because they are the most uncaring. If a group wants to help people and the govt is offering money to do so then let it. As long as that group doesn't take advantage of the people they are helping.

MsG: No one chooses anything? So, if Satanic "worshippers" decided to apply for funds to minister to the public wearing their pentagrams and their Satan tatoos, they'd get funds?

Of course someone chooses. And therein lies the obvious slippery slope.

Compassion and charity are worthy and essential (IMO) components of human societies. If charities are faith-based, however, rather than non-denominational or secular, they should exist and function without government funding.

I honestly don't know any Satanic worhsippers who are running homeless shelters, soup kitchens, or thrift shops, but if they are, then yes, Angie, they would be eligible for grants to help people.

I would object if government funds were being used to require people to be religious before the people could receive any help. I have no problems with faith-based organizations being who they are, advocating what they advocate, and expecting a little something, however small, in return for assistance. But then I'm a conservative. I think true charity provides a hand up, not just a hand out, and there is nothing wrong with expecting the able bodied to do something in return for benefits offered to them--such might help somebody retain a spark of dignity and self respect.

If it is the mission's policy to offer spiritual, physical, and emotional support, the mission may see that church service as a part of that. Nobody gets hurt. Any who object can probably find help someplace run by those Satan worshipper folks or somebody who doesn't give a damn about the person or even somebody who does and asks for nothing in return. Meanwhile, the mission is enabled by a government grant to feed more of the hungry, clothe or provide blankets or shelter for more of the cold and homeless, perhaps offer some medical assistance, or many other things that they couldn't do without it. The mission isn't doing anything it didn't always do--it can just do more and better with some government help.

Result: more people are helped. The government has to cough up a whole lot less money to help them than if the government did it without going through the mission.

Sometimes I think people are so fixated on the spot, they miss the elegance and excellence of the whole garment.

"The mission isn't doing anything it didn't always do--it can just do more and better with some government help. "

Sometimes not.

I volunteer at a charity that takes no government money in order to avoid the mounds of paperwork and "oversight" that would come with government funding. They do quite well with private donations.

I think what concerns people is that some charities make a strong and stated connection between what they are doing for someone in need and their religion; I know personally of one that requires its participants to inform those who receive goods or services that the help is not from them (the people), but from Jesus the Savour.

Please understand that I have no problem with this UNLESS that charity is government funded, in which case (IMO), it really does blur the line between church and state.

A few posts back I made my disclaimer that ALL government grants to ANYBODY including faith based organization must be given with specific guidelines for their use and with strict accountability for how the funds are used. Not all charitable organizations are able or willing to demonstrate such accountability.

But for those that are, to me the only other requirements for receiving a grant are
1) The ability to reach the most unfortunate of society who need help
2) A structure, ability, and willingness to provide such help.

Otherwise, I think the faith based organizations can be left alone to do what they do, how they do it, and with whatever emphasis they normally provide. Nobody forces anybody to go there. And so long as the organization's requirements for assistance are free or require reasonable accommodation by the recipients, I have no problem with it.

My reference to Satanic worshippers was an attempt to give an example of a faith based charity that some people might find unworthy or even offensive. Perhaps it was a poor example, but who is to say which faiths are really "acceptable" and which are not? While you may be Ok with Satanic worshippers being funded by the government for outreach work, my feeling is that most people would find it offensive.

I guess I believe that all organized religions, and those not so organized as well, must remain separated from our government. They can preach as loudly and as passionately as they choose, but not with tax dollars. For me, this is a fundamental belief.

(I also believe churches ought not be exempt from paying taxes, but that's another thread.)

I am firmly in favor of the First Amendment specifying that Congress shall not establish any religion. Our government cannot require us or tell us or even suggest to us what we should or should not believe or how we choose to practice or not practice religion. The president's faith-based initiative to help people in no way does that so long as there is no discrimination favoring one religion over another as to who gets the grants.

I am also in favor of the First Amendment that says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There I think the government would be wrong to tell the faith-based organizations that they have to stop being religious in the way they are religious if they are if they are to receive a grant that helps people.

So now, if we can be clear on that point, the whole object is to help people, make communities better, relieve suffering, etc. etc. etc. We have three choices there: 1) the government does it - VERY expensive and inefficient or 2) the non-religious private organizations do it and there aren't nearly enough of those to make a dent even though almost all are receiving some kind of government funding or 3) we can help the faith-based organizations do more and better within the organizational structures they already have in place and who are already highly motivated to help people.

My two favorite local charities are the Salvation Army and Joy Junction. The Army receives United Way funding (and therefore some government funding) and does a tremendous amount of good in the community. Joy Junction, like Angie's favorite charity, doesn't want the strings attached to government funding so operates with none. It also does a tremendous amount of good in the community. Both require a minimal amount of religious exposure to recipients receiving food, clothing, shelter, etc. I have no problem whatsoever with either being who they are. People are helped.

Every now and then practical considerations should override a larger albeit somewhat vague principle. Those who dislike any form of religion or benefits extended to the religious should weigh their personal preferences against the larger good that is accomplished because the religious are there.

Weighed - and still against any government funding of any organization with religious ties.

I've worked in the non-profit sector. I've seen what's been required of people seeking help that was available only through religiously-based organizations. Prayers required before people could take showers etc. <shakes head> There is no need for that sort of foolishness. None.

The three options Fox listed don't (I think) include government helping to fund secular organizations, so that option, along with the first two Fox listed would be my choices, as I, too, am opposed to government funds going to charities whose goals include not only "helping people" but proseletyzing.

ebeth referenced a group that requires prayer before a shower. People who need help already feel uncomfortable; requiring them to pray for their assistance is unfair.

Well I'm all for diversity of opinion being expressed. And so noted that Angie and ehBeth are opposed to faith based organizations getting funds to help people no matter what their skills or what the people need. I will continue to believe that helping people should override one's personal ideology, however.

It's not about ideology, and to suggest we would choose ideology before "helping people" is at the very least inaccurate.

What we don't want is to have that help come with "strings". There are plenty of worthy organizations, some public and some private, who offer people in need help, period, with no religious strings attached.

And I guess I believe that is more in keeping with the idea/ideal of separation of church and state.